Because it's a bit starting to annoy me when it comes to editing articles, those that are of the common content group. They're pretty inconsistent with formatting when comparing; Though for some reason, this isn't really a problem for those of Sim, Lot and (I believe) Worlds. Things like objects, simology mechanics and maybe even content pack articles (though there is more than I can list top from my head now). I may give examples later on, but what are your thoughts on this issue? Should sort of protocol/policy regulation for authors to follow a policy when creating new, and even modifying current articles, to at least keep them consistency by looking at examples of articles of the game? DrakonoSkerdikas (talk) 22:54, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
- A discussion of whether article structure format should be implemented. Other wikis seem to follow this suit, but not really this one. I strongly think it should be, like a formal guideline page of sorts catering respectively for different content groups (object, mechanics, expansion packs). What these format will be is another talk-- that is If this proposal of including such possible is gone about doing. DrakonoSkerdikas (talk) 23:21, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
- We already have one. It's called the Manual of Style. We also have something that makes this unnecessary: it's called "common sense". There's no concern with "inconsistency" in articles on more niche topics that require more prose and less templates; just write the content in an organized fashion and use headings when appropriate and when judgement calls. We already have a rigorous layout standard for things like Sim articles. I'm guessing you're getting annoyed over how school isn't like the rest of the wiki. The thing is, articles already follow a standard as they start with an intro section (AKA "lede"), followed by sections divided up by game, followed by more sections as needed. That's a good enough structure, and we don't need to enforce stricter rules on that. Just let well-intentioned editors use their judgement and not have ridiculously long byzantine rules over it. You're honestly getting yourself worked up about issues that are honestly minute and insignificant; readers aren't bothered by "inconsistency" when it's not inconsistent and they get the information they need all the same. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:55, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.